Uganda Case Law

Muwonge Samson Ashe v Sebwato Isa and Commissioner Land Registration

Muwonge Samson Ashe v Sebwato Isa and Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Application 339 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 517 (14 July 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 339 of 2024

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court found that the applicant failed to serve the notice of motion on the respondents within the mandatory 21-day period prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and did not apply for an extension of time within the additional 15-day window allowed by the rules. The applicant's explanation that he was waiting for a physical copy of the endorsed notice was rejected, as the digital copy was available on ECCMIS and could have been served electronically or printed for physical service. The court held that compliance with the service timelines is mandatory, and failure to…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Dismissal For Non Service
• Notice Of Motion
• Time Limits For Service

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose

Kagina Paul and Others v Tusiime Ambrose (Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024) [2025] UGHC 436 (18 June 2025)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 184 of 2024

Judge

Allan Nshimye, J

The court found that the applicants failed to serve the application within the 21 days prescribed by Order 5 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, with service on the respondent's lawyers occurring on 1st July 2024 and the process server's affidavit indicating service on 27th June 2024, both dates being outside the statutory period from the date of issue (9th May 2024). There was no evidence that the applicants sought or obtained an extension of time as required by law. The contradiction in the dates of service and lack of clear evidence of timely service led the court to conclude that the…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Time Limits
• Notice Of Motion
• Summary Dismissal

Twaiman v Abdul & Others

Twaiman v Abdul & Others (Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2022) [2024] UGHC 616 (5 July 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 39 of 2022

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court held that service of a Notice of Motion in a miscellaneous application is governed by Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires service within twenty-one days from the date of issue. However, where the original summons expire due to circumstances such as misplacement of the court file, and fresh summons are issued, the twenty-one-day period for service runs from the date of the new summons. In this case, the Applicant served the Respondent on the same day the fresh summons were issued, thus complying with the required timelines. The preliminary objection that the applicat…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Time Limits
• Preliminary Objection
• Notice Of Motion

The Registered Trustees of the Jinja Muslim Club v Uganda Moslem Supreme Council & Others

The Registered Trustees of the Jinja Muslim Club v Uganda Moslem Supreme Council & Others (Civil Appeal 68 of 2023) [2024] UGHC 79 (1 March 2024)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal 68 of 2023

Judge

Bukirwa, J

The court held that Order 5 rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and applies to appeals brought by Notice of Motion. The Appellant failed to serve the appeal within the prescribed twenty-one days and did not seek an extension of time as required by law. The court found no compelling reason for the delay or for exercising discretion to overlook the procedural default. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution does not operate as a blanket cure for non-compliance with mandatory procedural rules, especially where the party in default has not demonstrated sufficient cause. As a result,…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Timeliness Of Service
• Preliminary Objection
• Notice Of Motion

Jungiera and Another v National Agricultural Advisory Services and Another

Jungiera and Another v National Agricultural Advisory Services and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 79 (31 March 2023)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2021

Judge

Serunkuma, J

The High Court dismissed an application brought by notice of motion, holding that the dispute over tea-seedling payments and alleged fraud should have been commenced by plaint.

• Commencement Of Suits
• Notice Of Motion
• Preliminary Objection
• Fraud Allegations
• Affidavit Evidence
• Commencement-of-suit

Jungiera and Another v National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS)

Jungiera and Another v National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2021) [2023] UGHC 47 (31 March 2023)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Cause No. 24 of 2021

Judge

Serunkuma, J

The court held that the application was improperly commenced by notice of motion rather than by plaint as required under the Civil Procedure Rules. The nature of the dispute, involving allegations of fraud and contested facts regarding the supply of tea seedlings, necessitated an ordinary suit where evidence could be tested through cross-examination. Reliance solely on affidavit evidence via notice of motion was insufficient and procedurally improper. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents was upheld, resulting in dismissal of the application.

Source excerpt

• Commencement Of Suits
• Notice Of Motion
• Preliminary Objection
• Fraud Allegations
• Affidavit Evidence

Turinawe Rwagomani Amos and 2 Others v Nkuuna Abdullah and 2 others

Turinawe Rwagomani Amos and 2 Others v Nkuuna Abdullah and 2 others (Miscellaneous Application No. 1796 of 2021) [2022] UGHCLD 188 (13 September 2022)

Court

HC: Land Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 1796 of 2021

Judge

Kazaarwe, J

The court held that Order 5 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to suits commenced by plaint and not to applications brought by notice of motion. The instant application was not commenced by summons but by notice of motion, and therefore, the 21-day period for service prescribed under Order 5 rule 1 does not apply. The applicable provisions are found under Order 52, which does not specify a time limit for service of motions. The fixing of the hearing date by the court dictates the timeline for service, and the law presumes service will be effected accordingly. As such, the prelim…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Notice Of Motion
• Preliminary Objection
• Striking Out Pleadings

Male Mabiriziv Attorney General

Male Mabiriziv Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 919 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 28 (27 January 2022)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. 919 of 2021

The court held that in applications brought by notice of motion, pleadings are closed when the respondent files an affidavit in reply. The applicant has no right to file additional pleadings beyond this stage. The directions to file submissions were proper as they were issued after closure of pleadings, and the court acted within its inherent powers to facilitate expeditious determination of the matter. Furthermore, service by email was deemed effective in this case because the applicant was avoiding service and the court had authorized service via email. The application was found to be devoi…

Source excerpt

• Service Of Process
• Closure Of Pleadings
• Notice Of Motion
• Submissions Before Pleadings Close

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 others

Richard Kafumba v Attorney General and 3 others (Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015) [2021] UGCA 10 (1 April 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Civil Appeal No. 207 of 2015

Judge

Kakuru, JA, Madrama, JA, Kiryabwire, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in dismissing the application on procedural grounds that had already been conclusively determined by another judge in the same proceedings. The Court emphasized that Article 50 of the Constitution allows for enforcement of fundamental rights by any competent procedure, including notice of motion, and that absence of specific procedural rules cannot be used to deny access to justice. The High Court was functus officio on the procedural issue, and the subsequent judge had no jurisdiction to revisit or overturn the earlier ruling. The dismissal…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Fundamental Rights
• Compulsory Acquisition
• Adequate Compensation
• Procedural Irregularity
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Notice Of Motion

Sule Pharmacy Limited v The Registered Trustees of The Khoja Shia Itana Shari Jamat

Sule Pharmacy Limited v The Registered Trustees of The Khoja Shia Itana Shari Jamat (Miscellaneous Application 147 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 34 (1 June 1999)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Miscellaneous Application 147 of 1999

Judge

Ogoola James, j

The High Court held that a notice of motion for further and better particulars was governed by Order 48 rule 3, so the Order 6 accompanying-material requirements did not apply.

• Pleadings Requirements
• Notice Of Motion
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Particulars Of Defence
• Civil-procedure
• Notice-of-motion